Re: Proven right or Wrong.(revised)

Sham,
I forgot to add this other Theosophical idea into the below paragraph,
to help make the overall subject even clearer:
"Energy Follows Thought" -- on every possible plane.
Compiler
-------
--- In theos-talk@egroups.com, Compiler <compiler@w...> wrote:
> Sham,
>
> Since the Theosophical Teaching is firmly grounded in the idea that "The Universe
> is Embodied Consciousness", on every possible plane, meaning that all the "living"
> substance of the universe (atoms, in all their infinite divisibility, and
> molecules, etc.), during any period of manifestation, no matter how local or vast
> and distant, such as our planet, or the solar system, or the galaxy, and so on,
> runs up into form BECAUSE of Thinking, if I more or less understand the teaching
> correctly, it will be interesting to see what those students more knowledgeable
> then us can add to the discussion.
>
> Compiler
> -------
>
> Shampan-e-Shindh wrote:
>
> > Here is a posting I once replied to without adding the original message. Please
> > read my explanation completely until you reach the last line, after this
> > attached message.. or I beg you not to jump to conclusion.
> > ___________________________________________________________________
> > From: Compiler <compiler@w...>
> > Date: Fri Nov 17, 2000 7:24pm
> > Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Point of view- THIS is a Classic
> > example
> >
> > Sherab,
> >
> > This may or may not be helpful to some readers:
> >
> > As I read all of the stimulating scientific discussions here, and
> > not
> > personally having a scientific or scholarly bent, just being a
> > student who
> > is a theosophic generalist, so to say, in trying to understand it
> > all, I
> > keep clearly in the front of my mind at all times the fundamental
> > Theosophic statement, assuming that it is true, until proven
> > otherwise,
> > that "The Universe is Embodied Consciousness" -- on every possible
> > plane.
> >
> > Compiler
> > _________________________________________________________________
> >
> > The key line that I was remarking upon is "Assuming that it is true, until
> > proven otherwise"......
> >
> > Now I did cut only that line and added my opinion.. "What can be proven wrong
> > today, can be proven otherwise tomorrow"
> >
> > My comment might have appeared to be out of context, but actually it was a
> > general remark .....regardless of context, "including" this particular one. This
> > particular context, I tried to explain with my poor vocabulary as I wrote
> > earlier to Mr Dorje in message no. 466 of this archive.
> >
> > The (general) remark itself stood for our widening knowledge which learns new
> > facts and most of the time manages to change our opinion and belief. Often one
> > belief is discarded due to a new found fact, and then later another such newer
> > fact over-rules the immediate-previous fact, making the discarding to be a
> > mistake.. and we go through the reprocessing again.
> >
> > Please allow me few more paragraphs to explain the remark which should have been
> > implied (due to obvious reasons ...like my time and yours) in message no. 466.
> >
> > "Universe is Embodied Consciousness".. There is no proof of we exist as any form
> > of living-thing after the life-cycle of our earthly body. What that remark
> > implies here is.. if we were not there ... the whole Universe's existence would
> > have been nothing/insignificant.. as their would have been no living form with a
> > "consciousness" to observe it's existence.
> >
> > Most of the facts would tell us, we did not exist, when the Universe did. We do
> > not have to go very far, billions of years ago, when this earth was being
> > prepared, where our physical structure was being "prepared" either by accident
> > of nature or by a will-driven of One Unknown or by ourselves in another form...
> > Universe existed. There is a good possibility, that premitive form of "us" was
> > also prepared by another such accident or incident? .. And theoratically
> > speaking if there was a first spot for all of it to begin from, be it in a
> > butterfly or chaos system.. what ever.... It had nothing to do with.. our
> > current human concept of "consciousness" in it's widest meaning in any plane
> > that we can imagine today. Making the statement."The Universe is Embodied
> > Consciousness", with no solid proof to be universally accepted. As much as my
> > explanation being just as fragile in this particular paragraph.
> > Where our misunderstanding started is........ I was "NOT" questioning that
> > statement itself... the reasons to believe and not to believe that statement ..
> > I am equally aware of.
> >
> > My remark "What can be proven wrong today, can be proven otherwise tomorrow" was
> > simple, the proof if ever possible, does not finalize anything. We might get to
> > see the past and detect life-forms in the most abstract existence .. with the
> > media of a new found wave far more efficient than ether.... And we might be able
> > to see and hear as far back as billions of years before the last Bang or what
> > ever.. And restructure our belief as.. Universe exists.. with or without us...
> > as no intelligence was detected.... and thus my remark was only on the
> > Compiler's key-line "assuming that it is true, until proven otherwise".. what is
> > proof today can be over-ruled tomorrow.. just few years after that discovery
> > another new wave might show .. some life form (maybe ourselves in a more
> > premitive form) existing all the way, as far back as we can see.
> >
> > And such dramatic changes in our beliefs have always been there.
> >
> > -Sham
> >